Humanist Counter-Theory in the Age of Misandry

Rebecca Watson, hero and mathematician

There are a few kinds of whores in the world. To begin with there is your typical whore, the Main Street walking, garden variety anybody’s whore, consistent with the imagery the word conjures up. Almost always this is a woman. This is also, interestingly, the one variety of honest whore. A review of the others will explain.

We’ll start with your corporate whore, the morally unctuous sleazoid that readily sacrifices values and human decency in order to ascend the corporate ladder. Historically, most corporate whores were men, but we have pretty much reached a whorish sexual symmetry since women set out to prove that they could be as soulless as the most soulless man, and succeeded.

Next, there is your stupid whore, the individual that sells out their ability to reason and indeed to add 2 and 2 if it creates cognitive dissonance with respect to their subscribed belief system. It is not dishonesty in the truest sense of the word. It’s more like a mental defect – a sort of retardation — that prevents them from confronting inconsistencies in their chosen ideology. The stupid whore constantly confuses speculation with fact and indoctrination with enlightenment. They conflate the way the world is with the way they think it ought to be, and it always makes them look, well, stupid (think most members of the two mainstream political parties, most feminists, most religious zealots, a growing number of Atheists, and maybe most of them). Again, with this type of whore we see a more or less even distribution of the sexes.

Next is what is dubbed as the lying whore. This is the whore that dogmatically clings to a set of beliefs that they know little about, haven’t investigated and don’t completely, or even remotely, understand. They choose what they believe because they imagine it serves them to believe it whether it makes any sense or not. They will go ahead and add 2 plus 2, insist the answer is 5, and convey that to you with a doofy, hubristic grin on their face.

We have to keep in mind that 2 plus 2 is not the operative equation for the lying whore, because this kind of whore has already determined the answer regardless of the question. In other words, they start with 5 and employ it with whatever equation is presented. 2 plus 2 equals 5. 5 times 2 also equals 5, as does 137 divided by 4.6. The square root of 76,458 is also 5. It goes on and on.

You see, this kind of mathematical wizardry is employed by feminists, both male and female, that estimate every social malady ever documented stems from patriarchy, and conclude that feminism is about equality and is good for men, too.

2 plus 2 equals a lying whore.

Like the corporate whore, they know they are lying, but they do it for what they think is a cause, not because it might earn them a rung up on the corporate ladder. Sometimes a lying whore can also be a corporate whore, at least those that are better at multitasking, but their primary interest is whoring for the cause. This kind of whore rounds out the distribution among polemicists, feminists, fundamentalists and PZ Myers.

Last, we have your stupid, lying whore. Now, it must be made clear that this is not just a lying whore who also happens to be a stupid whore, though that also happens. No, this is a different subspecies of whore altogether. The stupid, lying whore is the whore that rigorously abandons intellect, rationale, evidence, decency and compassion, and also fosters much deserved hostility toward themselves, in order to further something; not a cause or an ideology, but themselves.

The stupid, lying whore will not be satisfied with touting the latest collective disinformation. That only serves shared political objectives, and utterly fails to put the focus on them personally. The stupid, lying whore cannot sit long without telling, well, ah, stupid lies, even doing so to play on the gullibility of their peers, whose personal attention and sympathy they seek as much as from the rest of the world.

Speaking of stupid, lying whores, let’s discuss Rebecca Watson’s latest article at Skepchick.org, a blogging community of women (and one token dude) who write about science and skepticism, as long as it does not contradict feminist ideology.

Rebecca has written something called, Misandry: A How-To. The article itself is not about misandry, or, obviously, how to do it. It is about how she and other women who trash and demonize men regularly are helpless victims, getting nasty emails and tweets from some people who don’t like it.

Once such comment came from an individual who penned, “Hope Dawkins will bestially rape you…in the elevator to hell.” This of course references the fact that Richard Dawkins views Watson as a bit of a moron, as well as the fact that she was once so offended by a man in an elevator for inviting her to coffee that she did a YouTube rant on it directed at everyone on the planet with a penis.

Another comment suggested she kill herself, but not before being raped, and that she was a “jokey cunt.”

There were literally like 6 whole examples of nasty remarks from people who don’t like her, and indeed some were less than sophisticated and intelligent. They were spread out as screen shots in between her pointing to other feminist women who just could not bear the pressure of similar treatment, and a nice story about how she once valiantly saved a cat, despite the protestations of her less than sympathetic, obviously male boyfriend, and how that proved she was the kind of person that always stepped up.

2 plus 2 equals Rambo for kitties.

So, Rebecca Watson has put the world on notice. She is going to continue to write about science and skepticism as long as it agrees with artsy feminist mythology. Torpedoes, twitter and cat hating boyfriends be damned, she is not going to stop.

She is a brave, relentless woman who stands fearless in the face of taunting tweets, caustic comments and evil emails. Triple alliteration on the house.

But one does have to wonder what she would be like under real pressure. I have a keeper file of death threats, but I never wrote an article about them. I have been hounded recently by half the media hacks in Canada, who wrote hit pieces on AVfM before ever talking to me, and only made contact as a fishing expedition for something to twist out of context as icing on their cake. This website and myself personally, have been attacked as agents of hate by the SPLC, who no more investigated their claims than Barry Nolan looked in to the MRM before declaring we were dangerous and had to be stopped.

One of our own, Dan Moore, was invited to kill himself by feminists, after it was discovered that he was suicidal.

Difficult? Sometimes. But it does not even compare to John the Other facing a gang of 20-30 assholes on the street, some wielding box cutters, outraged at him for putting up posters that said, “Men’s rights are human rights.” These are the same ignorant fucks that are currently online bragging at Athiest+, calling themselves the Femistasi. Anyone care to consider the math on that?

2 plus 2 equals stupid, lying, whining whore. What John and other MRAs are starting to encounter every day, and the future of what is to come, makes getting bestially raped by Richard Dawkins sound kinda funny. We just don’t get the luxury of playing the damsel in distress in a ploy for support, nor do we want it.

Watson is taking lessons from Anita Sarkeesian, who after clutching her bosom and threatening to faint when she expertly orchestrated and played up hateful reactions to her hateful project aimed at painting women as patriarchal victims, was rewarded with huge cash for the project.

2 plus 2 equals cha-ching.

It is the politics of victimhood, and you can already see other feminists and obsequious male sycophants pooping on themselves to lionize Watson as a feminist hero, pushing on against the forces of evil, bringing social progress against the grain of a misogynistic world, which she proves by waving some shitty things a handful of internet trolls said to her like they were daggers pointed at her heart.

She is not the empowered, independent woman promised by the feminist revolution, but a fragile, pitiable waif, powerlessly wailing that not everyone in the world likes her. She has no conception that we live in a world where no matter what you have to say, if you say it to enough people, you will piss off some wackos. It comes with the territory. It always has.

Sorry Paul, I haven’t finished reading your article yet, because part way through I was reminded of some other people who couldn’t count all that well, but boy, could they prove their mistaken mathematical beliefs to be completely true and correct. I just had to put it up for you lot to enjoy:

Bombay

LOL. Another hit out of the ball park.

Dr. F. Did you or one of your friends leave this on her blog?

“lucian 09.07.2012

I can barely believe people can be such assholes, let alone people that are supposedly slightly more intelligent than average.

I almost feel guilty for being a man. I don’t even know what to do to help.

Also, I hope the kitty is well.”

LOL. Maybe this guy should call the UN and they can tell him how to help.

http://www.avoiceformen.com Dr. F

No mate.

Wasn’t me. I’d say “arsehole” being down under and all.

lensman

You know, I’ve been thinking of conducting an experiment: I am going to post a reasonable Pro-MRA argument in the comments section, and then I am going to register with a different avatar and post the most insanely misandric shit I can think of. Then I am going to see which one of the two is actually going to show up.

MarkofWisdom

No points for guessing which one will, it is hard to lose a bet that is 120% going to happen, yay for 2+2=5

Christian “xXToYeDXx” Chiasson

Great article. Easily one of the best you’ve ever written Paul.

Roland3337

I know that I’m not the only poor shmuck that knows this, especially here, but for those that are new: Mention of “Misandry” in a (sort of) MSM article is a recent event.

In the process of F-ingTSU, we have taught innumerable morons and ideologues and in this case a world-class stupid media whore, a new word which they have added to their vocabulary.

It is a word that preys on the mind of the truly enlightened and the open-minded. It stays there, and reminds you that you’ve just now…right this minute…on TV…at the grocery store…on/in USAToday…in that blockbuster movie…that this phenomenon is real and must be dealt with in any civil society.

And we are indeed civil. I for example, wish no physical harm to come to Ms. Watson, despite her ignorance or ass-on-fire, ovaries-out bigotry.

I would not even piss on her…if she were on fire.

kiwihelen

I don’t get it. If you stick your head above the parapet, of course you are going to get shot at. It’s not rocket science.
I run a new pathway at work, at one point I was getting virulent and unprofessional attacks on the process we established on a daily basis. Some were really nasty. I dealt with it by keeping a tally on the total count of people I pissed off in a week, 34 was the peak and it’s since subsided because I maintained my calm rational approach in all responses.
This article shows is the worst example of the female trait of believing attacks on a thought or concept you have are personal. Nope. Debate is ideally constructive, but if someone is pissy and emotional, then the best way to deal is through calm measured rational responses, not emotional ranting. In 15 years of practice I’ve only once considered taking a grievance over a response to my work…but the idiot managed to piss off a much bigger fish before I got the complaint in…and he is now on gardening leave.
That kitty story…bleugh! In Islam they say charitable acts should be between you and G-d. No one else need know. This kind of boasting smacks of egocentric thinking.
I have little respect for women who expect to be lauded as clever things but get defensive when their ideas are criticised.

The Real Peterman

Women like Rebecca Watson insist that men do all the work of courtship, won’t tell them how they like to be courted, belittle men who don’t do it right, and then are shocked–shocked I say!–when men get angry at them for being belittled. It’s all just so unfair!

Kimski

‘Once a man has seen society’s black underbelly, he can never turn his back on it. Never pretend, like you do, that it doesn’t exist.’

‘I have seen its true face. The streets are extended gutters and the gutters are full of blood and when the drains finally scab over, all the vermin will drown. The accumulated filth of all their sex and murder will foam up about their waists and all the whores and politicians will look up and shout “Save us!”… and I’ll whisper “no.”

Rorschach from ‘The Watchmen.’

Steve_85

” They had a choice, all of them. They could have followed in the footsteps of good men like my father or President Truman. Decent men who believed in a day’s work for a day’s pay. Instead they followed the droppings of lechers and communists and didn’t realize that the trail led over a precipice until it was too late. Don’t tell me they didn’t have a choice. Now the whole world stands on the brink, staring down into bloody Hell, all those liberals and intellectuals and smooth-talkers… and all of a sudden nobody can think of anything to say.”

– Rorschach from ‘The Watchmen.’

The end of that and I’ll whisper no quote.

http://gravatar.com/lenfirewood TigerMan

Just testing if my gravatar works with the new login process.

kiwihelen

Like it!

lensman

I get tickled by the irony that many people love and quote Rorschach from the Watchmen when -according to Alan Moore at least- he was not supposed to be a good character. He was supposed to represent everything that was bad with the whole “Black and White” mindset of the so-called “90s antiheroes”. Of course Rorschach turns out being right in the end in the end (way to confuse your readers here Alan) but still… quoting Rorschach can backfire on you.

Then again, I am the guy that has Kenji Setou* as his current avatar so maybe I am not the most reliable judge for this sort of thing.

*Google it.

Kimski

‘The last sane man in an insane world’ ?

lensman

Yeah, and I don’t care if he was a paranoid “feminist-conspiracy” theorist he still was by far the most interesting character in the game.

The Real Peterman

Rorshach praises Harry Truman but on other pages rants and raves against Democrats, so maybe he’s not the most reliable character. Still, he gives good quote.

Kimski

I like this one the best:

‘None of you seem to understand. I’m not locked in here with you. You’re locked in here with *ME*!’

But that’s slightly off topic..

Theseus

Yeah, that’s probably the best scene in the comic. And before that he throws hot cooking oil all over the con that threatened his life. That’s why Alan Moore is so great. Unlike other writers, he can have you cheering and rooting for a character that he disagrees with politically and idealogically. To many authors are on a soapbox.

Just1X

Great picture – so she’s up a certain creek, without a paddle?

Do I get a pryze?

lensman

I tried reading Watson’s article…

…I could feel my brain cells cry in agony, as they suffered a brutal and agonizing death. I thankfully managed to close the browser before I turned into a drooling vegetable.

IT’S THE FREAKING INTERNET!!! OF COURSE YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE ASSHOLES EMAILING YOU!!!

I bet she also received emails which civilly disagreed with her, without being threatening or insulting. Why didn’t she publish those as well?

Oh, yeah, because it might paint dissenters as logical and intelligent human beings.

Alec Baldwin has once stated he divorced Kim Basinger because she considered every sort of disagreement as abuse.

That’s seriously the mindset of those people. Logic and facts are the same as rape and assault.

Slightly OT, but I can seem to access the “friends” and “messages” sections. Is it because of the WordPress update?

Kimski

‘Alec Baldwin has once stated he divorced Kim Basinger because she considered every sort of disagreement as abuse.’

Best excuse for not getting married in the first place I’ve heard so far, in a world where that would be the norm rather than the exception.

Just goes to show how little of the concept ‘oppression’ they actually seem to understand, unless it benefits their own agenda.
Ho-hum.

No, it is because we were going one direction with the development of a forum, and it turned out to be too much of a pain in the ass to set up. We have chosen another platform and it will be installed soon. Sorry for the inconvenience.

Theseus

Hats off to Alec. No surprise, he had a helluva time in family court too.

http://www.avoiceformen.com Dr. F

Well I s’pose we’ve been given our marching orders.

A twit-ter in an elevator and another one leaning out for attention asking for sympathy-hugs due to the landslide of haters out there just clawing for her address. Really ? Is narcissism at play here? Is there some kind of ‘self-pedel-estising’ afoot?

Questions are thrown at the wee-wee holders and they had better come up with the answers mighty quick sharp because any pause in reply = guilty.

Oh pah-lease Rebecca Watson. You’re enlightened and all that. You have copies of ‘American Scientist’ and ‘The Skeptics’ on your coffee table making it groan. I know you do.

So, is it a safe bet that somewhere in those reams of print there is one (just one) article touching on the idea that adherence to ideologue thinking swims against freedom of thought? Seriously, your clutching at feminist saluting must surely qualify as something that kicks against the scientific reasoning you respect ?

Put it this way.

How can you ‘be one’ with scientific methodology where the scientists themselves are required to reject opinion before observation ?

The data, courtesy of you, has just come in. The data says that you have it reversed as you (Rebecca Watson) are coming to conclusions made to fit your ideology (established opinion).

Please lie back everyone. The captain will be with you shortly.

TheUnknown

Oh I bet you didn’t read the article past the first two paragraphs! See, after unapologetically advocating hatred of all men, raising all the sexist attacks against women which she presumes are made only by men, and talking about cats for half a page, she makes it quite clear in those two sentences that she loves men and that anyone who doesn’t know this must be an asshole who hates reading.

Arvy

“I have been hounded recently by half the media hacks in Canada …”

Oh, you lucky fellow! Were any of them able to formulate an intelligible question? Most of those guys think that adding 2+2 produces an irrational number — and, in their own case, they’re right.

Watch out for the Canadian Press news agency. Their articles sometimes appear in all three subscribing publications, although not necessarily on the same day or in the same format. The required editing is long and tedious.

If you want a really relaxing interview, try CTV News. You don’t even have to open your mouth. They’ll answer their own questions straight from the script.

Robert St. Estephe

When men in China invented gunpowder there was no expectation to the eventual use of the material.

When men invented feminism it was done with good will and there was no expectation it would end up as just another corrupt cult of vice.

Robert St. Estephe

Comment mining. Here’s an idea inspired by the BIG man his/her self for a collection of 2+2=5-style quotes:

A woman walking around with this t-shirt at an atheist convention turned one of the skepchicks into a fake-tears whoor. She was literally shedding tears that were literally BS. No one saw them, but she swore they happened on her whoor blog.

The elevator guy, who has yet to turn up, was also made up. He attended a convention, so he is part of the community. Seeing that an hysterical character assassination was so widespread against him, surely he heard about it … had he existed.

And how many people could you possibly expose your literature to in a hotel convention? Aren’t blogs a kajillion times more effective? In other words, the conventions are really just about socializing with new people. For instance, over a cup of coffee.

The Real Peterman

I’d applaud that woman if I thought she could hear me.

DruidV

Stupid, lying whore?

Wow, for a minute there, I thought you were gonna segue into an epic saga about the life and times of my ex-wife..

Since there is no shortage of stupid, lying whores out there, I’m sure you’ll understand my initial confusion.

Clem Burke

I know Watson, and met her at an atheist get together,and I had a conversation with her about the elevatorgate situation and asked her what I thought was a very good question. As a gay man I travel alot speaking for gay rights and have had fellow gay men at all LGBT resort’s ask me to go back to the hotel room with them several times , is that sexist ? I mean I am a skinny guy that can be taken advantage of easily, so was it wrong of those men, why would it be differnt ? She liturally walked away and never spoke to me again and under her breath she said” you are weird” . My advice to her as what I did while in her situation is to say” no thank you “. I thought it was a simple solution to a simple problem.

Kimski

‘I thought it was a simple solution to a simple problem.’

Yes, but that won’t get you payed for screaming ‘I’m a victim’ to the four corners of the world.

You’re going about this in the wrong way.
Your’s would be the sane way, and that’s just not how it works with these people.

The Real Peterman

You’re a man, so it’s metaphysically impossible that any harm could come to you in the all-mighty patriarchy in which we live in. How dare you ask her such a question? *sob sob*

The Real Peterman

Just for the record, she didn’t rescue the cat. She was going to, but it started making noise so she threw it out of her house.

shrink4men

Yes, butttttttttttttttttttttttt she threw the homeless cat out to escape the wrath of her boyfriend’s displeasure because he selfishly wanted to be able to be asleep at midnight. Therefore, the patriarchy is really responsible for making her behave so heartlessly.

That “If I don’t stand up and save all the cats, who will?” bit was just priceless. Self-important, much? Pure unadulterated narcissism with just a smidgie of false modesty and an insouciant hint of professional victimhood.

http://www.deanesmay.com Dean Esmay

Being a sensitive soul and all (no really) I tend to have some sympathy for people who stick their necks out on the interwebz and get really viciously slammed. But you know what? Sympathy in that area has to be earned in some way, including showing the ability to admit to possibly being wrong, and a genuine effort at honest intellectual engagement with those you disagree with.

Has Rebecca shown any such tendency? So far I haven’t seen it. She’s astonishingly cruel and then cries like a baby when someone’s cruel back. Uhm, hello?’

(Note: I had my own bad old days in online when I would go off on people and just be mean to them. I’m no saint. But I learned the art of eating crow, and to be more careful before I shot my mouth off. Useful skill, that, and something a few of the “skepchicks” should learn.)

qdpsteve

Dean (if I may call you that): hope you don’t mind if I throw in my two cents, in the hope they’re at least relevant. Here goes…

Just to say, I can’t tell you how much I agree with your above statement. I recently had to ban myself from a somewhat popular Hollywood entertainment industry blog because I completely lost my temper with a common female poster there, who’s a close friend of the blog owner/main author.

Long story short, and I hate to drag politics into it, but plainly: the blog author and female friend in question like to think they’re enlightened, tolerant liberals… but they’re not. They’re full-blown Stalinists complete with concentration camp fantasies and an open desire to see anyone who disagrees with them, on anything, die in extreme pain. Of course they’re also both full-on feminists as well. Democrats (and further left) good, Republicans/Christians bad. Women good, Men bad. Gay good, straight bad. Minority good, white bad. Seriously, they’re every bit the intolerant, hateful cartoons so many on the right like to stereotypically paint the modern-day left as. It doesn’t help that they’re both also quite obviously privileged, cocooned, wealthy, and have probably done about as many hours of actual hard work in their lives as I could count on one finger.

On top of which, God help you if you disagree with ’em. Doesn’t matter if you’re nice about it or not. So in my last comment, when said female friend left a really snide comment to yet another thoughtful conservative commenter, who thought he was dealing with other people of good faith, I finally lost it. My response to this woman was basically “LMAO. Stick another line of cocaine up your nose and STFU.”

Now, since then, I’ve regretted this on personal moral grounds. Do I apologize for disagreeing with her politically? Absolutely not. But I’m not proud of my response and know I could have been more creative *and* more decent about it. OTOH, I know for an almost certainty that any apology for the words I used, which I might now post at the site, wouldn’t only be unaccepted… it’s probably be ridiculed and used as a nice big knife to stick into what I’m sure they perceive as my stupid, neocon, racist/sexist/misogynist/homophobic/etc. etc etc. head.

Anyway Dean, I’m sharing this to (1) ask if anyone else has had a similar feeling that they’re damned if they try to work positively and damned if they don’t; and (2) just provide my agreement with your point. I wish people could figure it out: that you get respect for your POV by showing respect for others’ POVs… but that’s obviously a bridge impossibly far for too many in today’s feminist movement, which makes it lot easier for me to understand a lot of the anger here. Especially from folks who’ve tried to reason with their respective feminist regimes and found themselves ostracized at best, and made unemployable, desperately lonely, severely depressed, and/or deprived of beloved family members and their freedom at worst.

It’s hard to treat people like this Rebecca Watson character as a human being when she’s made it so clear that she considers herself superior to, above, and untouchable by so many other human beings, and thus entitled to judge and condemn so many others that are just as deserving of respect as human beings as she is, regardless they have penises or not.

Geez, another 10,000 word essay. Apologies.

http://www.deanesmay.com Dean Esmay

No you may not call me Dean. You must call me “Master Esmay, Lord of all that is Right and Good” upon first addressing me, and thenceforth may refer to me simply as Master Esmay, or, on less formal occasions you may simply call me “Sir.” 😉

As for the rest: I’m starting to take lessons at the feet of the real master, Paul Elam. There is an art and a science of knowing when to be nice, and when not to be nice. The fact is that the men’s movement has been ongoing for some 30 years now and has routinely found that being nice just gets you trampled, spit at, or ignored. There comes a point when you realize that if you do not get in people’s faces and do some yelling, you get nowhere.

The art is in knowing when and where and how to yell, and when to stop yelling and start being civil again. If we had a mathematical formula to apply to know when to go which direction, I’m sure we’d all use it. But otherwise, it’s a matter of trial and experiment and your own experience and style.

For what it’s worth, though I didn’t see the whole thread, your “kiss my ass and goodbye” appears to have been the most effective thing you could do honestly, and I’d stop feeling bad about it right now. Bigots are bigots, haterz gonna hate, let ’em know how you feel and walk away without feeling bad about it.

Raven01

“Stupid, lying whore.”
That one has always amused me. Not the statement but the reaction from some women. Taking it as a personal insult.
As if, that must refer to every woman on the planet instead of just those that exhibit the traits that infact qualify them as a, “stupid, lying whore”.

Any woman offended by calling “a woman” a stupid lying whore, as if you insulting “all women”, is one that you should avoid. She is either too stupid to reason with or, she identifies with the traits of the stupid, lying whore and that is not the type of person anyone wants to be around.

Edit: Soon to be on ManBlob,
“Stupid, lying whore.”
That one has always amused me.

Seeeeeeeee, look at the misogyny. I told you so, I told you so.

tallwheel

“Soon to be on ManBlob”
You totally called that one. I saw it coming too. He is so predictable we could probably write his blog for him, and no one would know the difference.

keyster

The strategy is to polarize and keep the pressure on.
What the KKK is to african-americans, MRA’s are to women – – is the positioning they seek; the box they want to put us in, especially the SPLC.

We feed the justification for their continued existence, as long as we’re playing by their rules; always on the defensive. So they themselves need to be deconstructed and exposed, but it’s battling the politically correct thought police. That’s taking down a might powerful institution.

Imagine a debate with Al Sharpton and David Duke. This is their perception of MRA. “Why do white people need human rights? What a ridiculous notion!” This is the context MRA is slotted into…like it or not.

The hetero normative-privilaged white male class vs. every other identifiable group that he has victimized and/or oppressed. Until this orthodoxy of “thought speech” is torn down and obolished, equality and human rights for men and boys can never be realized… until there can be an open and honest discussion; which is what they’ll avoid at all costs.

Because if you’re for Men, you must be against Women. If you’re against affirmative action you must be against minorities and women. If you oppose gay marriage, you must hate gays, and so forth and so on.

Now you know what fighting the political left feels like.
It’s frustrating isn’t it?

Arvy

Keyster, I really like a lot of your thinking. Most of it seems to reflect a very clear-eyed perspective. But it always seems to stop just slightly short of the conclusion to which it seems to be leading.

I most emphatically agree that we’ve got to stop playing by their rules and being so much on the defensive. But then you go on to say that the alternative involves “taking down a might powerful institution.” I agree with that also, although we may not think exactly alike about the nature and composition of that institution.

What I’d really like to know, however, is where the frustatration with which you conclude leads you — if anywhere. Or is it just a hopeless cause that is already lost in your opinion? I might even be persuaded to agree with that too, but I’d really like to know what you think about it.

Theseus

Keyster, Arvy expressed a lot of the same sentiments that I have about you as well. However, when you delve into some issues, in this case gay marriage, I think think there are some inconsistencies. And even though it’s off topic, I think it’s important on the whole concerning what we want to achieve here.

“If you oppose gay marriage, you must hate gays”.

You have commented on this several times in your posts. To my understanding the MRM is a human rights movement for ALL men. All men have the right to pursue life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This includes our gay brothers, and if happiness means being married to someone of the same sex, so be it.

No, not all Christians and social conservatives that oppose gay marriage “hate” gays. However, a lot evangelical/ fundamentalist Christian groups certainly do fall into that category. I am from Texas, and I can tell you that a high percentage of these folks have a deep seated dislike for gay men, and would have no problem whatsoever with bringing back and enforcing anti-sodomy laws.

With that said, for the sake of argument, let’s only discuss those folks that oppose gay marriage but don’t hate gays. It’s still a bigoted position. Let me explain. It’s not their disagreement with gay marriage, no, it’s their want to legislate against it that makes them bigoted. My cousin who is gay ( and is an MRA by the way ) explained it to me like this “Cuz, this goes into the it’s ‘none of their business category’. They don’t have some kind of special say, or veto power over my personal life”. Hell yeah. I really don’t care if someone likes me, and is polite and courteous. If that person is up in my grill, telling me that I don’t have the same right that they do, It doesn’t matter whether they are smiling or not…they are wrong.

The fact that some gays are flamboyant and want to shove their lifestyle in others faces, is completely irrelevant. All one has to do is apply the Amy Biehl violation (love that article) to the situation, and this argument falls apart. And remember, a lot of gay men can’t stand feminists. There is a lot of potential allies there.

Tawil

Well stated, Theseus!

Linda M

The gay comparison is apt… unlike women, gay people are actually legally discriminated against, lacking many spousal rights and benefits that straight people get. The current US republican presidential candidate has stated on record that he intends to continue this discrimination if elected.

Meanwhile these ‘oppressed’ women have a distinct legal advantage over men in law, as well as a social advantage in being considered the aggrieved party by default in any dispute.

Hypocritical doesn’t even begin to cover it.

Carlos

Gay marriage is much ado about very little. With the way our marriage laws are written, and all the other problems facing society, I have to wonder why anyone wants to marry in the first place (not to mention why anyone’s trying to prevent others from doing so,) and why this is such a hot issue.

Gold-digging whores and lawyers make out well in divorce court, and everyone else loses. Who wants to roll the dice and have some corrupt, sexist and bigoted judge decide how to divide your assets? Marriage has become an institution bereft of any real prestige or sanctity anyway.

Gay marriage is polarizing and divisive and just not worth the fight. It’s a wedge issue in American politics and thought. It stirs up a lot of animosity and resentment over a symbolic and cosmetic issue. Better to fight for “Civil Unions,” avoid fighting over the legal word “marriage” and just move on. Twenty years from now when attitudes have changed more they can call it “marriage.”

Sasha

Can’t see what the problem is with gay marriage myself.

What’s so bloody special with gays that they don’t deserve to be as miserable as the rest of us?

Primal

The moment one goes on the offensive, they simply don’t know what to do. We’ve just been on the defensive for so long that it’s become habit. The game is starting to shift now…and it’s time to move to the offense.

I’ve nothing against Rebecca Watson. I just wish she’d put her dentures in straight before speaking in public.

Rex

Please tell me you know that Anita Sarkeesian’s research method is asking dudes who play videogames to find her examples of sexism:http://i.imgur.com/SZ3q0.jpg
Here is my form do my homework for me while i count my $150,000+!

Bombay

Woe is Watson.
There are many men that would gladly trade homelessness for crazy email.

Man up Watson.
Dead, maimed and disposable working men do not bitch about crazy email.

Wanton Watson.
Men who have lost their children through no fault of their own will gladly trade for crazy emails.

Whiny Watson.
Dead disposable fighting men do not whine about crazy email.

Whimpering Watson.
The African men who are being hunted down for circumcision by force do not cry about crazy email.

Woe is Watson.
Watson needs our compassion since she has none of her own.

I look forward to the day we stop accommodating women entering spaces not tailored to their sensibilities. Can’t handle the heat on the internet? Tough shit. You’re not getting any special consideration just because you were born with a vagina.

Women who go on the internet, get into online gaming, join the sports arena, etc. etc. aren’t experiencing that men haven’t been enduring for many, many years now. Time for them to do what we do: Take it or get the fuck out.

http://gravatar.com/keyester keyester

@Arvy

I don’t have all the answers, just thinking out loud.
These are uncharted waters we’re afloat in.
I’m hoping the reader will reach a conclusion.
I’m merely framing the dialectic, adjusting the optics.

Arvy

I guess that’s fair enough, keyster, but I really wasn’t asking you for all the answers. Just curious about your view regarding that mighty institution of which you speak — whether you yourself think it can be taken down and, if so, what new or additional strategies and tactics you might suggest for moving away from the defensive to a more assertive (not to say offensive) posture. It would seem obvious (to me anyhow) that we’ve got to get to people who are in positions of influence and shake them up a bit. Maybe more than a bit. But how?

Trying to battle the annoying feminist flyspecks and their brainwashed following with logical arguments and rebuttals is mostly a waste of time and resources, I think. They’re much too committed to an illogical ideology and agenda to be moved. Their high-level political and financial supporters, on the other hand, might be persuaded to see their own interests in a different light if they can be made to perceive current trends as a growing danger to themselves.

__
BTW, what’s with this new WordPress setup anyhow. We seem to have lost quite a few of the user options and controls, even including WP’s own login link at the top. Is that intentional, or did somebody screw up a version upgrade somehow? I’ve done it myself. So I don’t mean to pick on anybody, but I don’t much like the results in this case. It’s getting as bad as Common Dreams administration. — j/k

http://gravatar.com/keyester keyester

@Theseus

You fell into the trap.
Gay rights are not men’s rights, as a matter of fact most gay rights activists are strident lesbian feminists. Gay activist groups would throw men as a group under the bus faster than you can say “Stonewall”…IF those men were hetero normative and white. (ie – we don’t have a dog in that fight.)

My point is political correctness born out of the Marxist polarization of Bourgeoisie vs. Prolatariat, or in this case; the privilaged white male class vs. indentifiable victim groups.

Saul Alinsky merely took the tactic of Critical Theory and added some spice to it; ridicule, mockery, isolation and polarization of your opponent. This is what the group in Vancouver is doing, the SPLC, Barry Nolan, et al. This is how they silence opposition and avoid open honest debate…because they know they’d lose.

I want MRA’s to understand what’s happening and why; make some sense of it.

Tawil

Whats any of that got to do with gays choosing to get married without other people -others who already have freedom to get married- refusing gays the legal right and freedom to make that decision?

You are skirting around the issue of individuals having self-determination and equal freedom under the law.

I’ll ask you more directly so you can reveal your stance Keyster; do you think gays should have the legal right and freedom to get married like heteros do, or do you think this should be denied to them? By asking this I’m trying to understand how deep your resistance to gay marriage goes (or doesn’t go… you may be a supporter of equality under the law).

Anonymous

Keyster, there is no trap. I agree with your third paragraph wholeheartedly. With all due respect brother, WTF does that have to do with our gay brothers, who are MEN, marrying each other? I was specifically responding to the several comments that you have made in defense of people that want to ban gay marriage, and to point out that their position is inconsistent to with our cause.

Even a shitbag feminist, like a broken watch, can be right about something twice a day. I’m certainly not going to give her any credit for it. And the only reason she is for gay marriage is because it directly affects HER, not because she gives a rats ass about gay men.

You see, we don’t have to take the whole kitt and kaboodle attitude of “well if you accept this part you have to accept all of it” nonsense. Good ideas are co opted and added to extremist agendas ALL the time. I’m not going to throw out the baby with the bath water.

http://www.deanesmay.com Dean Esmay

You said the word “whore” and were not referring to a man.

You obviously therefore hate women as a whole. This is obviously either that, or you merely are no gentleman and therefore have no respect for this lady’s delicate sensibilities.

Either way, you know, you’re just pond scum Elam.

(Why can’t get my fucking gravatar to work goddammit? Some fucking whore must be responsible.)

.ProleScum.

Some fucking WASP whore!

(C’mon, your turn. Movie and character please. )

http://www.deanesmay.com Dean Esmay

You wanna play games? You wanna play rough? Say hello to my little friend!

Sorry, but out respect for Becca’s delicate state, we are placing a moritorium on overtly male faces. Either that, or the site is in the middle of being updated to bring you more services and features.

http://lenfirewood.wordpress.com/ Tigerman

A nerve has been touched – a very big one at that – the posters declaring that men are worthy of human rights is an appeal to a TRUTH that no sane human being can deny. Since the kind of feminism we are fighting cannot exist in that domain (ie TRUTH) it is a threat they cannot ignore. They can have all the parades and marches that they want – but it will be no more than a clamour for attention to once more embrace their lies. The rights we seek are human rights a simple message to declare but one they simply cannot tolerate for it attacks the very heart of what they are all about. This isn’t a struggle between men and women but rather a resistance to wilful ignorance inspired by bigotry and hate that threatens our collective humanity as much as any other group that puts self interest before the common good.
In my opinion that is.

Aimee McGee

Oh, it is not just me on the gravatar thing…I was beginning to think dementia had struck, because I couldn’t remember how to load it!

Her dentures are fitted perfectly straight. It is her face that’s askew.

http://gravatar.com/effdoff Dr. F

Oh my goodness this is a cracker of a post.

Anonymous

There is one particular behaviour pattern about homosexuals that I absolutely hate and that is the fact that if you disagree with them, you are threatened and labelled a ‘homophobe’. They swear at you and call you demeaning names!

The word itself is ridiculous and not even proper English. Just because I disagree with homosexual marriage, does not mean I am frightened to death of homosexuals.
I have worked with homosexuals for years and get on with them the same as I do with straight people.
They are no different to me, except what they do behind closed doors, I totally disagree with. And before anyone attacks me and says that I have no right to comment on what they do behind closed doors, I would say that I totally agree and neither should homosexuals be using the law to force on our society the exact thing that I find offensive.

I think that the topic of homosexual marriage would be more palatable to the general population, if the threats of prosecution with penalties of fines and prison sentences, were not hanging over the heads of anyone who disagrees with it. Currently, the only models that have been seen around the world on the internet regarding this topic where laws have been enacted to allow homosexual marriage, we see a raft of laws forcing the general population to bow down, or face prosecution.

We see enforced re-education of children in schools where they are told that sodomy is normal and natural sex, when we have known for thousands of years it is most definitely not; we see laws that ban parents from removing said children from the school when these classes are being taught and if they do, they face a prison sentence. There are other laws being touted to prevent any public comment against this topic, or you face a prison sentence. What the EFF is that crap all about?

If they want something to happen, how can they expect to get what they want and have the general public happy, when they use the exact same whipping stick that radical feminists have used for the last 40 years?

This stuff is all over the internet. So for all of you, who support homosexual marriage please tell me this. Why is it that no one can criticise this topic or vote against the attempts at changing an institution that has stood for thousands of years, without being threatened by some punitive measure?

This is exactly what the radical feminists do, and the homosexual lobby groups are doing exactly the same. If our homosexual brothers want the same respect, then they should not be trying to use a big stick to make me conform to something I disagree with.
Where has the old adage of “Agree to disagree” gone?
And where is the right to have your say publicly gone?

How dare you threaten me and my children with prosecution, because I/we choose to disagree with the lie that sodomy is normal sex!
If you want us on side, you are going about it the wrong way!

Thank you for telling us all what is normal and what is not. As to having people like you “on side,” I will personally pass. Your kind is not needed here.

Tawil

S @ “There is one particular behaviour pattern about homosexuals… is the fact that if you disagree with them, you are threatened and labelled a ‘homophobe’.”

Likewise, if you disagree with hetro right-wingers you are threatened and labelled a “marxist” or a “sodomist”.

“If our homosexual brothers want the same respect, then they should not be trying to use a big stick to make me conform to something I disagree with. Where has the old adage of “Agree to disagree” gone? And where is the right to have your say publicly gone?”

Nothing wrong with agreeing to disagree, or voicing opinions. But when the person voicing an opinion has legal rights that the targetted other person does not enjoy (eg. child custody rights; equal protection from violence; equal access to marriage) then the person being discriminated against should, IMO, enjoy anti-discrimination law to fight back. Doesn’t mean you have to agree with thier lifestyle.

When it comes to the question of being ‘normal’ dont forget the feminists believe you and all males are not normal, hence the reason why we do not get equal respect nor equal rights under law. That you would extend this “not normal” status to our harmless homosexual brothers says you are as bigoted as feminists with thier branding of non-chivalric behaviour as abnormal.

Raven01

I totally disagree Tawil, in respect to any anti-discrimination laws.
I cannot think of one single instance where those laws had their intended effect and were not abused.

That said, I oppose gay marriage, less than I oppose straight marriage though. So, really I would have to say I just oppose marriage.
It is a contract that is worthless to any man and, very beneficial upon dissolution to many a woman. That make gay/lesbian marriage easier to support as the courts wouldn’t have a clue where to start in their whiteknighting. Either, there are two men or two women, so who should they screw to the wall in that case?

Tawil

You can’t think of a single example where a black man, disabled, ethnic, or other person successfully used anti-discrimination law against something blatently unreasonable? I can think of hundreds of reasonable applications of this legislation against bigoted or violent people.

Where i agree with you is that it often gets misused, for the most trivial or manufactured slights. Worse, ‘administrative discretion’ is used by the feminist establishment to apply the laws favouably to women’s claims and almost always unfavourably to males claims of discrimination.

So its not perfect, in fact it the application is extremely flawed, but saying it never works as intended (never, ever) is going too far.

Raven01

Okay, I mis-spoke. I was referring to the ultra-PC anti-discrimination laws that we have here in Canada. The type that apply only to certain groups or can be used by other groups.

Of course a generic anti-discrimination law would be a good thing. So long as it was fact and evidence based.

I also have to point out that the rampant abuse tends to negate any gains of valid claimants. e.i. you just got your promotion because you are x,y, and z. It actually undermines the accomplishments of individuals of any protected group that really did earn their place.

Tawil

I understand where you are coming from. The laws need to be reworded, made tighter so the whole practice of administrative discretion has no place. I suspect feminists deliberately build discretionary powers into legislation so they can misuse them.

One of the ones that gets wildly misused in Aus are the maternity anti discrimination practices. If you are pregnant you must be appeased in the most unreasonable ways…. it is sending small employers broke, and that’s why most employers around the world are chucking women’s CV in the bin the second they leave the job interview. So like you say misapplication undermines the whole principle.

Shrek6

And I am totally against businesses having to pay a woman maternity wages, when she is not even there doing a scrap of work to earn that money. What the heck is going on in this country. They are going to send small businesses broke. And if they don’t employ women, they could end up being prosecuted.

Bad form if you ask me. And that is taking positive discrimination way too far!

kiwihelen

Anonymous, lots of heteros do anal sex. I favor open discussion of said topic as it will hopefully inform the next genaration that condoms are essential in anal to reduce the spread of HIV.
As for the human rights issues, it’s a slippery slope argument if you don’t look to some protected characteristics, I was escorting a blind friend yesterday and twice had to tell people to vacate designated disabled seating on the trains. She was not asserting her disability made her ‘special’, by being left standing the risk to her and others would have been unacceptably high.
Permit discrimination on one grounds and humans will take it as acceptable to discriminate on others

Paul

Hi Anonymous,

Where are there laws threatening people who disagree with same-sex marriage? Half the country disagrees with it and it’s totally allowable to do so. When you say that “there are … laws touted to prevent any public comment against this topic, or you face a prison sentence,” this is totally wrong!

Now, where I do agree with you is that political correctness is crazy: you should have the absolute right to express what you feel about a particular sexual practice without being attacked.

(But also, please remember, there’s nothing “gay” about anal sex, which is hardly universal in male same-sex sex and, as kiwihelen mentions below, is very much practiced male-female too. When, if ever, this trope of gay = anus will disappear from our culture is anyone’s guess, but probably not for quite awhile since it provides the core of probably 75% of the tedious-beyond-belief gay “jokes” beloved of comedians–Bill Maher being a noted example.).

I also agree with you somewhat when you talk about the general tactics of gay politics today. And I say that as a bi male–for want of a better term, since I don’t like bi much more than its alternatives.

But when you speak of “normal and natural sex,” I don’t know what you’re talking about. People have been doing everything since the beginning of time.

Linda M

Not just “half the country”! Discrimination against gays is currently one of the major selling points of a presidential candidate.

Paul

Hi Linda, agreed. But with regard to same-sex marriage specifically, a number of polls show a narrow majority in favor now.

shrek6

Hello, testing testing. I seem to have trouble posting. Must be my browser.

Arvy

Don’t think it’s your browser, Shrek. I think the site admins here are updating the WordPress installation (or trying to) and we’ve lost some functionality. Among other things, the usual login link seems to have disappeared, but you and anyone else who may be looking for it can get to it directly athttp://www.avoiceformen.com/wp-login.php

Tawil

G’day Shrek, I read you loud and clear brother. 😉

Anonymous

This page keeps breaking down and I lose my post and have to start again.

Arvy

Just be patient. They’ll get it sorted out. WordPress is usually quite easy to work with, but some of its “third party” plugins can be problematic during upgrade operations. When things don’t go right the first time it can be a bit of an administrative nightmare to untangle. We’d better hope they’ve got a pre-upgrade dB backup, just in case.

If you oppose “gay marriage” from a legal standpoint, you are also supporting government intervention into, regulation of, and control over, the private lives of citizens.

I don’t think it makes you anti gay, just pro big, controlling and ultimately abusive government.

But hey, no need for anyone to let that get in the way of trying to protect the institution that now represents the greatest source of discrimination against men, right?

Arvy

Considering the divorce rate, one wonders whether marriage is really worth all the fuss and bother for such a transient status anyhow, especially when the law already recognises common law arrangements. Why not just make it a completely self-declared option for any two people, or any number for all the difference it makes these days. Hey, everybody, we’re married until next Tuesday!

She try to use Shrek’s Puss’in’Boots trick. She just tell a little story (let’s assume it’s true) on how she is a good person, how she is soooooo cute, how she is sooooo adorable that any disagreement is a capital sin.

What a psycho that woman.

Shrek6

Hey Marcos, you pickin on my Puss!

Shrek6

I think sometimes people get a bit hung up on the topics of same sex attraction and sodomy. I have no problems with same sex attraction, because it is often a normal attraction and is recognised by the Church as not being wrong.
Sodomy is a different kettle of fish, but I won’t get into that now.

I have known men (women too) who have lived their lives together in a loving relationship and would never be parted, yet have never had a sexual relationship. They wouldn’t consider it. Yet they are classified or ‘branded’ as homosexual/gay. This is wrong, because here again a label is being used wrongfully.

I am getting very tired of bloody labels. They have been used against all of us far too much and its time we start resisting their use. Well, except of course if we are referring to radical feminists, then I think it should be open season. Hehehe!

Primal

null

andybob

Gay marriage? The US Presidential elections wouldn’t be upon us by any chance?

Regular readers are very familiar with my stance on this issue. Gays should have the right to marry, but should be strongly discouraged from exercising that right for their own sake. Inviting the state to participate in your relationship is madness.

The politically active gay lobby label dissenters as homophobes with suspicious speed. Sometimes the label is correct, sometimes it isn’t. MRAs are right to be wary when professional victim groups throw around accusations of bigotry with, dare I say it, gay abandon. It is a corrupt tactic that is beneath the contempt of any thinking person.

That said, it is never a good sign when sodomy gets dragged into the debate. It is a clue we have veered form an objective debate into something else entirely. Sexual proclivities are irrelevant to the discussion. It reminds me of what a very wise elderly gay gentleman told me when I was young. He said that most people wouldn’t have a problem with what you were – their issue would be about what you did. He added that for most people, homosexuality boiled down to one thing: sodomy. It was the real reason why lesbians have always been given a pass (of course, some lesbians ‘do’ sodomy too, but this is not the public’s perception).

Repulsion to sodomy is a natural human reaction that most people cannot control. As such, it is unfair to judge someone on it. However, it isn’t unfair to remind them that personal reactions should not dictate legislation. They are irrelevant. Not all gay men are into sodomy – you may be very surprised. On the other hand, many straight people are very into it – look at the vast number of straight porn sites devoted to anal sex. None of that is relevant to the topic of gay marriage either.

AVFM is a forum where topics like this can be discussed openly and from a variety of perspectives – respectful and honest exchange is paramount. It is a fact that GLBT is not above silencing dissent with dishonest accusations of ‘homophobia’. It is contemptuous behaviour deserving of condemnation. So, let’s condemn it, and leave sodomy out of it altogether.

JFinn

Repulsion to sodomy is a natural human reaction that most people cannot control.

And yet, that repulsion is far smaller or even non-existent when it comes to lesbian sexuality. Gay men and especially boys are hit far harder by homophobia. Homophobia is misandry. There is no knowing how natural said reaction is, until we observe the reaction of human beings who grow up in a non-misandric society. One where guys can express (non-sexual) affection for each other without feeling uncomfortable.

http://pinterest.com/zetapersei/male-privilege/ Perseus

Magnificent analysis. Thank you, thank you, thank you andybob for elucidating that for me. I hadn’t quite been able to resolve the sodomy thing in a satisfactory way, but you have done it.

“Repulsion to sodomy is a natural human reaction that most people cannot control. As such, it is unfair to judge someone on it. However, it isn’t unfair to remind them that personal reactions should not dictate legislation. They are irrelevant. Not all gay men are into sodomy – you may be very surprised. On the other hand, many straight people are very into it – look at the vast number of straight porn sites devoted to anal sex. None of that is relevant to the topic of gay marriage either.”

http://gravatar.com/keyester keyester

“I’ll ask you more directly so you can reveal your stance Keyster; do you think gays should have the legal right and freedom to get married like heteros do, or do you think this should be denied to them?”

I simply don’t care, and neither does anyone but a small group of vocal gays and a majority of leftist sympathizers. It’s a polarizing “wedge” issue that does nothing but distract from the abject misandry that dominates our culture. In the grand scheme of things gay marriage couldn’t be any less consequential.

Be aware gay marriage is a key aspect of the Feminist plank, because it redefines marriage as between two women.

The thing I find interesting about gay marriage is that, by virtue of having two people of the same sex partnering, it’s a little difficult for the state to consistently be biased against men when it comes to conflicts. For example, on a DV call, how can the officer always arrest the man per department policy? There’s either two of them involved, or none. If there’s two, and they both get arrested, years worth of that happening could yield statistics that could indicate a lot of reciprocal violence in gay male couples. Which of course, would only affirm feminism’s claim of men all being violent assholes.

But what gay female couples? Those statistics would surely indicate that women don’t physically abuse each other very often in a domestic setting, if ever, right?

I think that if gay marriage were legal in, say, a dozen states, for around twenty years, that could potentially shed a lot of light on the truth of things. I think people would see that DV isn’t entirely a male-on-female thing.

Then again, it would do no good at all if people just ignored the statistics related to DV in lesbian couples, no matter how many gay women were getting married across the country. Which is certainly a strong possibility.

http://kiwihelen.wordpress.com kiwihelen

There is huge evidence of domestic violence in lesbian partnerships. Thats one of those dirty secrets that makes the mockery of the whole Dulluth model

http://www.deanesmay.com Dean Esmay

This is one of the reasons why Republican opposition to renewal of VAWA may have been a bad thing, because they based their reasoning not on the way it horrifically discriminates against men (the real reason to oppose it) but by objecting to including gay and lesbian couples into it. Admitting same-sex couples into the mix would force the entire system to deal with male victims and female perpetrators, and would probably be the wedge that eventually forced recognition of heterosexual female perps and heterosexual male victims.

When people ask me why I’m not particularly supportive of conservative Republicans in America, since conservatives at least SAY nice things about traditional masculine virtues, the reason is that at bottom when it comes to POLICY, they don’t improve a goddamned thing for the male of the species.

This is also why, in America, I will not stop the drumbeat of “anti-feminism is not enough.” Can’t speak to any other nation, but in America, being anti-feminist automatically gets you points with Republicans and right-wingers in general, and otherwise gets you squat. (Note: I have right-wing, Republican friends, my point is not to bash them, it is to say that I’ve noticed that when it comes to men’s issues, with “friends” like that you hardly even need enemies.)

MrStodern

Republicans, by and large, are traditionalists, which may put them at odds with feminists at times, but that’s only because neither one wants to admit how closely related they really are. The fact of the matter is, their beliefs are pretty equally misandric, and no matter how much fighting goes on between them, they can agree on one thing: The MRM is fucking their shit up. They want this to be between them, because then they can just drag it out for forever and ever. We’re throwing a wrench in the works, we’re the third party guy finally getting a shitload of votes.

Perhaps decades-worth of legal gay marriage would help, perhaps it would get ignored. I just want us to try it out.

Your point isn’t logical. If you are a proponent of human rights, and gay men are human, then they are entitled to the same rights you have. I support women’s right to vote. That does not make me a leftist or a feminist. You’re just providing a non sequitur, a two plus two is five.

I support the right of consenting adults to marry, regardless of sex, should they be stupid enough to do it (no laws against stupidity, I’m afraid). Just because some feminists make the same case does not mean I am playing for their team.

You can do better than this.

http://pinterest.com/zetapersei/male-privilege/ Perseus

I tend to find keysters perspective on this compelling.

‘Gay marriage’ is a red herring. Marriage, as a socially implemented order and state sanctioned institution, is an exchange of property rights, reproductive capacity for labor capacity. This has no meaning in the context of two individuals of the same sex. Marriage is not romance. Ceremonial ‘marriage’ can be whatever anyone’s heart desires.

Order, in this case social order, is inherently exclusive, it cannot be all inclusive or it is not order, it is chaos. The most bleeding heart liberals among us even advocate for their personal brand of social order, which yes, is exclusive in some fashion. Proper social orders seek to ‘optimize’ inclusivity and exclusivity. The antiquity and ubiquity of the tradition of marriage, across all cultures, bolsters the argument for its effectiveness as a social order. The spinsters have, indeed, twisted the discussion. The question is not ‘why not gay marriage’? The proper question is, ‘what is the compelling reason and rationale to completely eliminate the nature of marriage as it has existed, and change it into something completely different? And more specifically, why change it into whatever its meaning and social implications would be were it to be simply a union of two adults of any sex. Why gay marriage? Why not polyamorous marriage? Why not sibling or first cousin marriage? Why not incestuous marriage? Why not age ambivalent marriage? Why not bestial marriage? Why not inanimate marriage. Why not marriage to institutions or corporations? The proper question is ‘why gay marriage, specifically’? The advocates wrap themselves in pious, loving, inclusive absolution, yet they are hardly tolerant of many things.

I simply find the rhetoric in advocacy of ‘gay marriage’ to ring hollow and cheap, a tell tale sign of insincerity and ulterior agendas. When I here some homosexuals say, ‘what the hell would I want to subject myself to that brutal institution for, inviting the state into my private affairs..?’ I can’t help but agree.

To restate, that those who state ‘gay marriage’ as a social order has no bearing on traditional marriage as a social order are lying through their teeth is quite evident when one considers the definition of marriage, an exchange of property rights, reproductive for labor. Indeed, ‘gay marriage’ is nonsensical, antithetical and an antonym in relation to marriage as there are no property rights to be exchanged.

Tawil

“I simply don’t care, and neither does anyone but a small group of vocal gays and a majority of leftist sympathizers.”

Wrong.

Surveys done in many Western countries consistently come up with the large majority of the population supporting gay marriage. Further, there are a significant number of conservatives who support gay marraige in same counties. In Australia and the UK for example there is nearly 45% support for gay marriage among conservative politicians.

So leftist or marxist conspiracy my ass (2 + 2 = 5). Anyways thanks for answering the question about your own perspective on marraige equality under law: inconsequential, wedge, distraction, battling for wrong team, leftist… I understand better where you are coming from now.

Today in the U.S.A. (2012), according to a number of polls, over 50% of the American population want same sex marriage legalised.

Obviously that’s more than a “small group of vocal gays and a majority of leftist sympathizers.”

Bombay

Most of the impetus for gay marriage is to gain the legal/tax advantages of marriage. They want to claim their dependent for both tax and insurance advantages. Yes there can be some disadvantages to being married, but those are not the focus.

Get rid of the tax/financial differences between being single and married and see if there is still a push for gay marriage. The bottom line is that government needs to get out of having regulations that apply to one group but not another. Single, married and those with children should be subject to the same tax regulations and one group should not supplement the life style of the other(s).

JFinn

Today in the U.S.A. (2012), according to a number of polls, over 50% of the American population want same sex marriage legalised.

Obviously that’s more than a “small group of vocal gays and a majority of leftist sympathizers.”

The internet has brought 2 radical changes in the U.S. – the steep rises in pro-gay marriage and anti-abortion. Perhaps the reason for the latter is google image. Perhaps it’s more related to the spread of information. Most people now commonly think that the heart starts beating 3-5 weeks after conception, often earlier than the discovery of the pregnancy. Support for abortion has plummeted from 56% to 41% in only 15 years.

As for gay marriage – the internet has connected a lot of closeted gays with their outted counterparts, emboldening many to come out. 71% of Americans now say they know a family member or friend who is gay. Pro-gay marriage Americans have jumped from 30% to 53% since 1995(!!!) And when you isolate for age, you realize this might be a non-issue in a few decades. 40% of Americans older than 55 support same-sex marriage, while 68% of Americans aged 18-34 support same-sex marriage. Sorry for being U.S.-centric, I’ve yet to research other countries on this issue.

http://gravatar.com/keyester keyester

In a world rife with identity politics, the privilaged white male class is identified in only negative terms as oppressors of everyone else.

walterwart

Good God, man. You’re obsessed with whores. Go find one. Treat her (or him) nicely and tip well. Get it out of your system.

And if PZ Myers is a whore I’m not sure how he stays in business. He isn’t exactly the most handsome guy in the Biology Department.

“But one does have to wonder what she would be like under real pressure. I have a keeper file of death threats, but I never wrote an article about them. I have been hounded recently by half the media hacks in Canada, who wrote hit pieces on AVfM before ever talking to me, and only made contact as a fishing expedition for something to twist out of context as icing on their cake. This website and myself personally, have been attacked as agents of hate by the SPLC, who no more investigated their claims than Barry Nolan looked in to the MRM before declaring we were dangerous and had to be stopped.”

Wow.

You. Are. So. Admirable.

That’s the real point about all your crying, right? That you’re the alpha-internet tough guy?

Question: regarding the damsel in distress who linked to this article so that you male feminist heroes can save her with your mighty snark – what was she crying about? That everything victimizes poor weak women?

Bruce Heerssen

Hey, when you don’t have an actual argument, fling shit on the walls, amirite?

Hey, when you don’t have an actual argument, fling shit on the walls, amirite?

An argument against …?
You guys are desperately trying to conceal your bitterness and lack of substance with weird mockery.

http://www.deanesmay.com Dean Esmay

Bitterness at what?

Rebecca can join the club of those who’ve gotten death threats and name calling. What she can’t do is join the club who ignores it rather than playing pathetic victim over it. Rebecca might also try producing more examples of all these supposed “hundreds” of threats she’s gotten; every time she’s asked to produce, she trots out the same few. Go on, ask her to just put them all out there so everyone can examine them for themselves. Will she? We’re still waiting. If she can produce these hundreds of threats, we can eat crow and stop calling bullshit. But then even if she does, she can expect to learn from those of us who’ve gotten similar threats but are males of the species and so therefore apparently unimportant. But first things first: where’s her proof?

Props to her for having the guts to actually link to a critic though.

anonymous

Calling a woman whore because you disagree with a post, now that is some fine rebuttal and certainly displays an astounding level of dumassitude. Thinking that only 6 six nasty remarks (especially around rape and thinking one should kill themselves) is a good thing is ridiculous. Nobody should tolerate one nasty response especially wishing you dead or to experience violence. If you disagree then present a cogent argument. Finally, calling a woman a cunt, other derogatory terms for women’s genitalia, a bitch or a whore is a great way to deny you have issues with women. If you are going to go there (also not a great way to make most people take you seriously) then call them assholes, idiots or jerks.
And btw, I am happy you have never had the experience of being groped or being told that you must be “on the rag” (this was because you asked some male lab partners tone down the sexual comments).

Love your shtick, but let me offer some suggestion in the way you type to clarify your points.

Calling a

WOMAN

whore because you disagree

especially around

RAPE

Finally, calling a

WOMAN

a cunt,

Just some friendly suggestions to help you accentuate your vagina centric rhetoric. Now, I would suggest you consider the misandric bile that Watson, and others at Skepchick are obsessed with spewing and consider who that may contribute to anger directed at her, but I know that won’t do for you.

Sorry hear you got groped and told you were on the rag for suggesting your male lab partners tone down the sexual comments. Try getting thrown in jail or sexually mutilated for suggesting you want a divorce, and then come back here with your indignation.

Obviously if someone calls a woman a name that is used primarily on men he would sound odd. You just buy that female supremacist line that no pejoratives should be designated to women because you don’t give a shit about all the ones that are designated to men because you’re a misandrist. I also love that you take offense to being called a name while calling the guy a dumbass in the same line. Are you bothered by whore and slut? Are you equally bothered by creep and perv, or is this another example of your hypocrisy and bigotry?

I want ‘twat’ to make a comeback.

scatmaster

How many times do I have to say it.

Fish in a barrel. Fish in a barrel.

Shrek6

Hey Annoniemouse, Keep talkin. Me, Puss and Donkey are having a great time at your expense!

http://www.avoiceformen.com Dr. F

To anonymous,

I write the occasional ridiculous comment on this site to highlight bone-headed-ness in the glaring light of reason here.

There really is no shortage of material to draw upon with those comments and it’s satire I lean towards. Your comment here would qualify as one I would be proud of.

It’s got just about everything in place to make a satirical write:

There’s the extrapolation of anecdotal experience to cement an assertion of fact and the word ‘wrong’ in context without explanation, defensive wording before narrow minded opinion,

Exclamation marks flung about as confetti at a bridal waltz with churlish adopting of slogan re-writes and statements made atop a pyramid of unsubstantiated diatribe,

Directions for a different approach with no citation coupled with verbosely presented “insights” and patronising references to material gleaned, (Google- is that on the net or something?)

The high-horse megaphone delivery with rickety logic, lack of understanding of cause and effect and the last paragraph beginning with “How dare you…”

The “How dare you…” is the wrap that winds all around your ink and that wrap simply drips fear. You perhaps confuse your fear with an urge to “speak out and do the right thing.”

Please, if you will, tell me I am wrong in any of I have said here and I’ll reply in short time.

Sasha

I don’t think it’s at all surprising that Rebecca Watson received a very mixed – somewhat hostile – reaction to her now-notorious ‘elevatorgate’ video. However, I would offer a slightly different take on it.

The video begins with Rebecca telling viewers how much she’d enjoyed her recent trans-continental travels. Photos of her in sunny San Francisco, tales of adventures in New York, and finally her attendance at a conference in Dublin, Ireland where she’d been on a panel with well-known authors and intellectuals.

She then spends the rest of the video bemoaning the sexism she believes blights the lives of herself and other women within the atheist community and illustrates this by relating the tale of an attempted pick-up by a man at the Dublin conference.

The 2011 World Athiest Conference she’s referring to was held at the 4-star Alexander Hotel. This is described on its website as being, “beautifully appointed with polished woods, marble and leather upholstery…it exudes a discreet combination of classic traditional elegance. The guest rooms have recently been fully refurbished and include luxury touches like cashmere bed throws and plasma TV’s.”

Ireland’s unemployment rate recently hit a high of 15%, with young people in Rebecca’s age range it hovers around 40%. In common with several other EU economies, Ireland’s is described as ‘critical’ by the OECD with ‘no prospect of growth’ in the near future.

The Catholic church in Ireland has ‘imploded’ according to Bishop Noel Treanor, under the weight of child sex-abuse scandals in recent years. Housing prices have fallen an average of 30%, plunging millions into negative equity.

One might have thought that an extraordinarily privileged young woman, a feminist no less, would have had plenty to talk about. She might have reflected on the current state of young women in Ireland, many of whom – like young men – are emigrating to find jobs, desperate for work, the traditional faith of their land disparaged and discredited, trying to find a source of optimism and hope in a landscape of despair.

Sadly not it seems. Indeed, the country outside the revolving door of her luxury hotel merits not a single comment.

Utterly incurious, Rebecca blithely and easily identifies the key issue of the moment: being ‘sexualised’ by a male stranger. Politely admittedly, but still – men eh?

The colossal self-regard of feminists has long since ceased to surprise me.

Support AVFM!

Sponsored links

Hot on the web

Mental Health Corner

Who’s raped more often, boys or girls? Turns out, it’s boys. And who does the raping? Looks like it’s a tossup between men and women. Don’t believe it? Psychotherapist Tom Golden looks at the research. Please share this article far and wide.